In classical logic, a contradiction will imply every statement: (p and not p) implies q. This is called explosion.
In paraconsistent logics, this is no longer the case, so we can still have contradictions and not prove *everything*. There are still statements that cannot be proved.
Okay, I like you use *everything* and not everything.
So here is a version of everything and anything goes if you allow for a contradiction.
Someone: If you allow for a contradiction then anything goes.
Me: No, because I can't still turn in one and not the one, but another direction at the same time, place and in the same sense.
Sometimes when debating logic at its core level in relationship to everything, then some people forget that logic in practice is a process in some brains and computers and do a category mistake. They take the set of everything and then declare that everything can be done logically. I.e. the world/the universe/reality/everything is logical. That is an over-reduction where they reduce all times, places and senses/phenomena down to one. They don't like the following: Reality is one for only one category, e.g. logic, because I just answer: No!
Now that is falsification, but not as falsified through observation. If everything is one (category), then No! is nonsense, but the result of nonsense is it being falsified.
In philosophy in part we falsify all the time, because we in effect show the limit of logic, reason, objectivity, evidence and what not. But most westerners don't get that because they believe everything can be explained in the positive sense with logic, reason, objectivity, evidence and what not. It can't.
Hi Polymath257. You do that too. You think with the correct definitions of everything you can turn everything into objective observation and confirm as positive through observation. I treat that statement p as falsifiable and the test is that I answer: Subjective!
You then get to the result that it is nonsense, and that is correct. The actual falsification of everything is objective, is that it is nonsense, because nonsense is subjective and only experienced subjectively.
You are not that special, because you are not alone in that. You don't relevant for your own subjectivity catch it and hold it as subjective, because you believe in objectivity, so you subjectively reject it, because you subjectively believe in objectivity.
You don't notice, that you are experiencing the result of testing if everything is objective, when you get the negative subjective result of nonsense. You are conditioned through your training only to accept results which are with logic, reason, objectivity, evidence and what not for everything/reality/the world/the universe in toto.
I was conditioned differently because I learned it as a soldier. You don't train for it to work only in the positive, because you can't control the outcome. You train also to act when it goes wrong and recover from that, if you are lucky.
Do you get the difference? You work with the meta-assumption that it will "add" up and make sense. I was taught that it never will and as a skeptic I know that as a conditional absolute. As longs as humans remains humans(condition), then we can't make the perfect, correct, logic, consistent, coherent, positive and what not theory of everything, because that is nothing but an idea and it is not possible because you can't reduce away human subjectivity.
Yeah, I know you try and every time we get here, you fail, because you answer to the effect of "I don't accept that". But the joke is that is subjective and the confirmation of subjectivity. You are subjectively confirming that subjectivity is at play by subjectively denying it.
That is not unique to you. Both some religious and non-religious humans do that. It is a shared common cultural trait. That we ought to with logic, reason, objectivity, evidence and what not for everything/reality/the world/the universe in toto get the correct result. I just answer: No! and as long as humans are humans that is no different than gravity. You can't escape either, but they are different - one is subjective and the other objective, but they are both universal for humans.
Regards and love
Mikkel